By Jerry Alatalo
“Those who would treat politics and morality apart will never understand the one or the other.”
– JOHN MORLEY (1838-1923) British statesman
an Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein and her Vice Presidential running mate Ajamu Baraka pull off a political, historic and odds-defying “miracle” over the next 75 days and win the 2016 presidential election? Just thinking about such a possible scenario coming to pass on voting day November 8 gives the idea of “the old college try” a whole new meaning and level of intensity.
What can one discern from observing neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump have expressed any welcoming of Dr. Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson to televised debates, marking the 1st time in U.S. presidential political history where four candidates take the stage and engage in battles of ideas? In answer to that question… Because blocking Dr. Stein and Mr. Johnson from debates is effectively blocking democracy itself, the stances of Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump are equally undemocratic and should lead to conclusion by the American people in rejecting Clinton and Trump as fundamentally unfit for the high office of President.
There is nothing stopping Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from gladly accepting and embracing proposals for 4-way debates, numerous and lengthy, in the remaining 75 days of the campaign. So, if there is nothing but their own reasons stopping them from welcoming 4-way debates, how do the American people grapple with Clinton and Trump’s persistent choosing of exclusionary 2-way debates meant to “inform” voters on their “leadership options”?
The most important question Americans need to ask themselves is: “what are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump afraid of?” In an ideal world, at every four-year interval America’s voters attempt to learn about the candidates running for President of the United States – the men and women who’ve decided to present to “We, the people” what they each believe are the best ideas and options moving forward. By firmly denying the fullest range of ideas by candidates with a mathematical chance of winning from occurring, the only logical conclusion is that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the real fear that Americans will decide Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have better ideas.
Again, in an ideal world, perceptions held by most Americans of a good or great President is of a man or woman who encourages and fully welcomes better ideas. By taking positions excluding Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson from debates, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump dismiss, ignore, and trample over the highest perceived images of the American people regarding what separates potential leaders of the nation, making clear the distinguishing human characteristics of generally held conceptions of leadership, and making identifiable those who fall short of the mark, the mediocre, those who are very good, and the (hopefully) truly great.
Students of history are aware of humanity’s fundamental evolutionary nature. In the year 2016, those who disregard the wishes of Americans and people around the world for more inclusive and full-range discussions about the future of life where they reside and across the Earth place themselves on the “wrong side of history”. They stubbornly maintain a death-grip on ways of conducting politics, business, economics, militarism and international relations most human beings perceive and have concluded are counter-productive, and the antithesis of evolutionary historical processes inherent to, and inseparable from, the human species.
At this historical juncture in the year 2016 – in the remaining 75 days until Americans decide who they want as their next President – the perennial process of human evolution toward establishment of global conditions most conducive for profound increase in measures of peace, justice and truth must, through unanimous agreement, become remembered and take its rightful place at all tables of serious discussion and debate.
Accurately accounting for the human evolutionary process and acting in concert with natural, inherent workings of life on Earth toward increasing improvement and beneficial choices entailed in building a better “human condition” is nothing less than moral, ethical and honest. “We, the people” are wise enough to listen, compare, assess, imagine and decide the future of life on Earth.
Open up the presidential debates…
(Thank you to RT America at YouTube)